I haven't tried. I won't bother until it's out of beta.

As said I fixed it with Galaxy. But after this, I won't be touching the GOG client with a 10 foot pole, because it has proven in two instances that

a) as a beta it's unstable
b) doesn't offer me any benefits whatsoever this point in time

Based on that it's going to be bye-bye Galaxy. Will be playing the living crap out of Wild Hunt though, if I finally get home from work today :p

So far it looks like The Witcher 3 is the only game which does that though. All others I have installed can be started without the Galaxy client. And to be frank I thought that was the whole idea of Galaxy, which I'd like. Seems I'm wrong though...

I will however also say that if someone had the viewpoint that they should not be including this "beta" functionality into a game or game installer at all unless someone purposefully chose to sign up for the beta - and only include it with the stable released products when the particular feature in question (in this case galaxy support) is stable, then I would probably have to agree with that because as it stands right now whether someone opts into Galaxy beta or not, there is a possibility they might experience bugs caused by glitches in the Galaxy stuff being present - which is almost certainly not GOG's intent to give them the benefit of doubt, but it is a real world scenario that seems like it is definitely happening to people, and so while I'm personally ok with the stuff being in there (but I am beta testing Galaxy too) I can totally understand and respect someone's opinion who isn't and doesn't want to test it to be affected by bugs it is causing.

That would create GOG more complexity in doing this stuff and make it more difficult, but it would give a better customer experience during beta time period. But, once Galaxy is considered stable and officially released, then I'm all for having a single build of a game that includes all of the necessary files to have any of its functionality work properly for the reasons I mentioned above.

I'm a firm believer in not mixing stable software and beta stuff together unless someone opts into beta testing, but that's just my opinion and what I think the core problem is.

That's completely understandable IMHO, if you are expecting a stable experience and not interested in beta testing, I support that view that you shouldn't have to be beta testing anything. :) I do also hope though that anyone who tests Galaxy now and has any bad experiences with it and stops using it, will reconsider trying it out weeks/months down the line when it has been released stable and had a few updates to work any remaining major issues out. It'd be nice to see how people react to it with all of the features planned actually present and working and without all of the developmental problems being present.

Witcher 3 has a common bug that ask the game to be installed and-or executed under Galaxy? Seriously?

Can't say with 100% accuracy, but judging by the people who posted in the "it crashes" thread over in the sub forum, a common theme seems to be Galaxy. Let's hope this gets ironed out quick and everone can get to enjoy the game, whether it's because of Galaxy, or anything else that went wrong with the activation patch.

Absolutely true. The good thing is that you just had to delete it to get the game running. Don't they test their standalone installers on a computer without the client installed?

I take a wild guess and say they don't have a computer without the client installed. ;)

I am not impressed. It has the same (troublesome) features as the website does, adds nothing.
I find both (site and client) lacking in usefull functionality...

I would also wish for useful functionality but I wonder if we mean the same things. What are your most wanted useful features?

I've never been so totally indifferent about anything on GOG, which to my mind is a very good reason not to use it.

Can anyone explain to me what the reasons might be to use Galaxy?

I already really like to GOG community and I prefer to just be able to download my games directly through my browser - it's simple and it works, which is really all I want.

I think the time and money that is being thrown at Galaxy should really be directed at new games and movies. The system works - so don't over complicate it!

Although it has to be said, GOG do seem to always try hard to deliver in one way or another and that should certainly be applauded.

Just my two cents.

There are apparently lots of people who are too scared or too busy to download and manage actual files. Clients which handle updates for them are a valuable tool. Apparently.

I wasn't planning on trying Galaxy until it was out of beta anyway, but so far everything I've heard has decreased my interest in it. Managing downloaded files is a lot easier than Galaxy so far.
If this keeps up, GOG will become a much less attractive store to buy from.

If I want DRM-free-if-I-put-up-with-some-hassle, there are a ton of stores to shop from. GOG sold DRM-free without hassle. If GOG stops being a 1-click DRM-free gaming solution then it's competing with Desura and HB on price, and GOG has a hard time competing on price outside of deep sales.

Downloaded it, but as said elsewhere, it seems quite a bit useless to me.

Moreover, I found the overall UI quite missing.

Don't use it, haven't tried it, don't care for it. Was considering using it for multiplayer on few games but then remembered I don't play multiplayer.